In the heated arena of South China Sea geopolitics, state media like China’s Global Times often serves as a megaphone for Beijing’s narrative. A September 22, 2025, article titled “GT Investigates: Records from US, UK provide solid proof of China’s sovereignty over South China Sea islands” claims “indisputable” historical evidence from British and U.S. archives validates China’s control over key features like the Spratly Islands (Nansha Qundao) and Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Dao). But is this “faithful witness” to history, or a selective remix?
Claim 1: British 1974 Memorandum by E.M. Denza “Provides Clear Evidence” of China’s Sovereignty Over Spratly Islands
Article’s Pitch: A UK Foreign Office memo from February 1974, authored by legal adviser E.M. Denza, reviews claimant views and concludes early 20th-century Britain favored China’s claims over French ones for “strategic reasons.” It traces China’s sovereignty to the 15th century, representing the “official position” of the UK. Expert Chen Xidi calls it “authoritative,” and Prof. Anthony Carty echoes that UK/French archives view the islands as Chinese territory.
Fact Check: Mostly False The memo exists—it’s a declassified internal UK assessment stored in the National Archives, referenced in academic works on the nine-dash line. It notes Britain’s historical lean toward China in the 1920s amid French interest, citing “strategic” colonial alignments rather than ironclad legal endorsement. However:
- Not Official Policy: This was an internal “re-examination” for UK eyes only, not a binding recognition. Post-1974, Britain shifted to supporting UNCLOS (1982) and multilateral talks, never endorsing unilateral Chinese sovereignty. As of 2025, the UK backs freedom of navigation and calls for de-escalation, aligning with the 2016 arbitral ruling that invalidated China’s expansive “historic rights.”
- Carty’s Book Bias: Anthony Carty’s 2023/2024 book The History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea Islands does cite UK/French archives favorably for China, but it’s a pro-Beijing perspective from a visiting Peking University professor—not mainstream consensus. Critics note it overlooks Vietnamese/Philippine counter-archives from the 17th century.
- X Chatter (2025): Pro-China users amplify the memo as “proof,” but skeptics call it “cherry-picked colonial gossip.”
Verdict: Historical nod, but no “solid proof” of current sovereignty. The article inflates an advisory note into gospel.
Claim 2: Early 20th-Century U.S. Maps Confirm Huangyan Dao (Scarborough Shoal) as Chinese Territory, Excluded from Philippines
Article’s Pitch: U.S. maps from 1898–1908 (e.g., 1902 War Department map) place Scarborough Shoal outside Philippine boundaries per the 1898 Treaty of Paris. A 1938 U.S. cable reiterated this, and no objections were raised to China’s 1930s naming. Expert Chen affirms it’s “inherent” Chinese territory.
Fact Check: Mostly True (on Maps), False (on Sovereignty Implications) The maps do exist and show the shoal west of the 118° E longitude line, outside initial U.S.-defined Philippine bounds post-Spanish cession. The 1938 cable from U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull to the War Department confirms: “Scarborough Shoal lies outside the territorial limits of the Philippine Islands as defined by the Treaty of Paris.” However:
- Ambiguous Treaty, Evolving Claims: The 1898 treaty’s boundaries were vague (no explicit mention of the shoal), and U.S. administrations didn’t actively claim it. But post-WWII, the Philippines incorporated it into its territory upon independence (1946), viewing it as within its EEZ under UNCLOS. Some 18th–20th-century Spanish/U.S. maps did include it as Philippine.
- 2016 Ruling Trumps Maps: The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled Scarborough within the Philippines’ EEZ, rejecting China’s “historic rights” beyond UNCLOS limits. As of 2025, tensions flare—China declared it a “nature reserve” in September, prompting Philippine rejection.
- X Pulse: Filipino accounts blast it as “propaganda,” citing UNCLOS; Chinese users tout maps as “irrefutable.”
Verdict: Maps align with the claim, but sovereignty isn’t settled by 1900s cartography—modern law favors shared EEZs.
Global Times as CCP Megaphone
Global Times, under the People’s Daily, isn’t journalism—it’s “noopolitics” (mind-framing warfare). This article exemplifies:
| Element | Tactic | Example from Article |
|---|---|---|
| Loaded Language | Absolutist phrasing to imply consensus | “Indisputable,” “solid proof,” “objective fact”—ignores disputes. |
| Selective Sourcing | Cherry-picks pro-China experts/archives | Cites Chen Xidi (Chinese institute) and Carty; omits Vietnamese 17th-century claims or 2016 ruling. |
| Victim-Blaming Flip | Frames rivals as aggressors | Mentions 1970s “occupation by neighboring countries” without noting China’s island-building. |
| Historical Revisionism | “Artifacts Tell Truth” series as narrative tool | Pushes 2,000-year “discovery” myth, downplaying colonial ambiguities. |
| Echo Chamber Boost | Amplifies on X | GT’s post garners likes from bots/pro-Beijing accounts. |
Studies label GT’s SCS coverage as “hawkish agenda-building,” associating with anti-West threat narratives. It accuses rivals of “tailoring history” while doing the same. No fakes per se (docs are real), but framing distorts: 70% of global analysts see China’s claims as expansionist, per 2025 Chatham House reports.
Global Facts:
The SCS spans 3.5 million sq km, carrying $3.4 trillion in annual trade. No single “owner”—it’s a multipolar mess under international law. Key truths:
- Core Disputes: Overlap claims by China (nine-dash line, covering 90% of SCS), Taiwan (similar), Philippines (EEZ-based), Vietnam (historical), Malaysia/Brunei (continental shelf). Spratlys/Paracels/Scarborough are flashpoints.
- UNCLOS Rules the Waves: 1982 convention (ratified by all claimants except “historic rights” holdouts) grants 200-nm EEZs but not sovereignty over disputed islands. Features like Scarborough are “rocks,” yielding no EEZ.
- 2016 PCA Ruling: Philippines v. China invalidated nine-dash line; China rejected it as “null and void” but hasn’t complied. EU, U.S., ASEAN mostly uphold it; no enforcement mechanism.
- 2025 Hot Spots: China declared Scarborough a “nature reserve” (Sept. 11), blocking Philippine access. U.S. FONOPs continue; Philippines rejects as “illegal.” Vietnam protests Chinese surveys; multilateral talks stall.
- Broader Stakes: Militarization (China’s artificial islands host missiles); fishing/resource clashes kill dozens yearly. Think tanks predict “Beijing dominance” by 2030 without diplomacy.
| Claimant | Key Features Claimed | Legal Basis | 2025 Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| China | Spratlys, Paracels, Scarborough | “Historic rights” (nine-dash) | Builds bases; rejects UNCLOS limits. |
| Philippines | Scarborough, parts of Spratlys | UNCLOS EEZ from Luzon | Wins 2016 ruling; U.S. ally patrols. |
| Vietnam | Paracels, Spratlys | 17th-c. annals, UNCLOS | Occupies 21 features; oil deals. |
| Malaysia | Southern Spratlys | Continental shelf | Low-key; focuses EEZ resources. |
X trends: #WestPhilippineSea surges with anti-China posts; pro-Beijing counters with “historical maps.”
History as Weapon, Law as Lifeline
Global Times‘ article isn’t outright fake—archives are genuine—but it’s propaganda polished to “prove” what international law disputes: China’s unilateral dominance. By framing old maps as modern mandates, it sidesteps the 2016 ruling and multiparty realities, fueling escalation over dialogue. For South China Sea sovereignty fact check seekers: True history is layered, not linear. Global consensus? UNCLOS over ancient claims. As 2025 tensions simmer (e.g., China’s “reserve” gambit), stakeholders must prioritize talks—lest archives become footnotes to conflict. Share this for balanced China South China Sea claims debunked insights. What’s your take—historic proof or power play? Comment below!
